Quotes from the dissent of a judge appointed by Ronald Reagan on the Wisconsin voter ID law:

Quote:

—"Some of the 'evidence' of voter-impersonation fraud is downright goofy, if not paranoid, such as the nonexistent buses that according to the 'True the Vote' movement transport foreigners and reservation Indians to polling places."

—"As there is no evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it's a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials?"

—"There is no evidence that Wisconsin's voter rolls are inflated — as were Indiana's — and there is compelling evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is essentially nonexistent in Wisconsin."

—"The panel opinion states that requiring a photo ID might at least prevent persons who 'are too young or are not citizens' from voting. Not so. State-issued IDs are available to noncitizens ... — all that's required is proof of 'legal presence in the United States[.]'

—"This implies that the net effect of such requirements is to impede voting by people easily discouraged from voting, most of whom probably lean Democratic."

—"The panel opinion does not discuss the cost of obtaining a photo ID. It assumes the cost is negligible. That's an easy assumption for federal judges to make, since we are given photo IDs by court security free of charge. And we have upper-middle-class salaries. Not everyone is so fortunate."

—"There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens."

—"The authors’ overall assessment is that 'voter ID laws don’t disenfranchise minorities or reduce minority voting, and in many instances enhance it' [emphasis added]. In other words, the authors believe that the net effect of these laws is to increase minority voting. Yet if that is true, the opposition to these laws by liberal groups is senseless. If photo ID laws increase minority voting, liberals should rejoice in the laws and conservatives deplore them. Yet it is conservatives who support them and liberals who oppose them. Unless conservatives and liberals are masochists, promoting laws that hurt them, these laws must suppress minority voting and the question then becomes whether there are offsetting social benefits—the evidence is that there are not."

The clown show has no objection to titles like "Obama's Epic Failures", "Benghazi-gate", "Obama is the end of the free world". But let someone post a Reagan appointees skepticism about the right wings claims being positively "goofy" and they go nuts. Look out, your make up is smeared.

According to liberals, other liberals are too stupid to have ID's. In fact they are too stupid to go and pick up their FREE STATE ID'S. And furthermore, even though they need ID's for everything else they do, they are too stupid to put it in their pockets to vote.

But even more bizarre, many states have agreed to let them vote without ID's, as long as they produce one after they've voted.....One's that they can get for free.

According to liberals, other liberals are too stupid to have ID's. In fact they are too stupid to go and pick up their FREE STATE ID'S. And furthermore, even though they need ID's for everything else they do, they are too stupid to put it in their pockets to vote.

But even more bizarre, many states have agreed to let them vote without ID's, as long as they produce one after they've voted.....One's that they can get for free.

There are many Constitutionalsist who are extremely right wing, that are of the opinion that it is unlawful for a State to require them to obtain a driver license to operate a motor vehicle as travel is a right guaranteed to them under the US Constitution. I guess those conservative Constituionalists not wanting to be required to obtain State issued card to exercise a right are "stupid" too.

I wonder how voting ever occurred before the advent of identification cards.

The Arkansas Supreme Court yesterday struck the state's voter ID requirement under the state constitution. The unanimous ruling means that Arkansas will not use Act 595's voter ID requirements in the upcoming elections.

The ruling is based on state constitutional law only, and therefore won't and can't be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

The state high court ruled that Act 595's voter ID requirement added a voter requirement to those set in the state constitution. Arkansas's constitution, art. 3, Section 1, says,

Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, any person may vote in an election in this state who is:
(1) A citizen of the United States;
(2) A resident of the State of Arkansas;
(3) At least eighteen years of age; and
(4) Lawfully registered to vote in the election.
The court said, "These four qualifications set forth in our state's constitution simply do not include any proof-of-identity requirement." The court struck Act 595 on its face.

The court also rejected the argument that voter ID was simply a procedural method of identifying a voter, and therefore constitutional under a state constitutional provision allowing such methods:

We do not interpret Act 595's proof-of-identity requirement as a procedural means of determining whether an Arkansas voter can 'lawfully register[] to vote in the election.' Ark. Const. art. 3, Sec. 1(4). Under those circumstances, Act 595 would erroneously necessitate every lawfully registered voter in Arkansas to requalify themselves in each election.
Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson concurred in the result, but because Act 595 failed to get a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the legislature as required by a 1964 amendment to the constitution that sets the requirements for identification and registration of voters (and does not include photo ID) and allows for legislative amendment of those requirements if the legislature votes by two-thirds in both houses.

According to liberals, other liberals are too stupid to have ID's. In fact they are too stupid to go and pick up their FREE STATE ID'S.

Or, if they can't or won't go pick it up, it will be delivered to them personally, free. So as it stands now, in most states anyone ... ISIS, dead people, illegal aliens from Venezuela or Mars, Debbie Wasserman-Shitz ... hell, ANYONE ... can vote (apparently several times in some communities).

But DO they? I can find no evidence that individual voter fraud is rampant enough nationwide to warrant the dollars and manpower necessary to fight it.

Nationwide, that is. Al Franken, all by himself, is a shining example of the value of fighting voter fraud.

The sour grape reasoning of the right. Having their claims of fraud debunked, having their political operatives caught on tape admitting that the purpose of voter ID laws is to suppress minority voters, having a Reagan judge describe their arguments as kooky, this is all that Bard has left. Putting false words in "liberals" mouths. Don't actually think or address the issue.

Quote:

According to liberals, other liberals are too stupid to have ID's. In fact they are too stupid to go and pick up their FREE STATE ID'S. And furthermore, even though they need ID's for everything else they do, they are too stupid to put it in their pockets to vote.

Nobody, liberal or otherwise, has said anything like that. What I say is that these measures are racism V. 2. They are intended to suppress the voting of the poor and those of color. The Republicans have been doing it since Rehnquist was an op in Arizona. They do it because it works.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum